@SugarandSpiceandAllThingsNaice
If I follow correctly, you are reading the question "Do you include Hitler in that?" as "Using the criteria you just listed, do you then consider Hitler to be illiberal, fundamentalist, totalitarian and/or terrorist?". In which case JKR's reply is basically "Yes, obviously, have you read what he said? Furthermore, isn't it worrying how many of the people who stand against what he stood for are adopting his methods?"
I read the question "Do you include Hitler in that?" as meaning "You are saying we should extend free speech to our political opponents, that the state should not punish those with contrary views, and that polititical opponents should not be punished with violence or death. But would you include Hitler in your tolerance? Would you support Hitler's free speech? Support Hitler's right to say whatever he wanted to without punishment by the state? Are you saying that Hitler did not deserve violence or death for his political views?"
And I believe the person who asked that asked it in bad faith trying to catch JKR out because there is no straight answer that will not condemn her and be tweeted round the world before the truth can get its boots on.
If she says "No, I'd make an exception for Hitler. Some political views are awful that even just as words they deserve to be met by state supression and violence" then she would immediately be branded a hypocrite, with TRAs replying that saying trans women are men is hatred on the same level as Hitler so what is she complaining about, and BTW is this you agreeing we can kill you now?
If she says (as I suspect her view may be) "Yes. Even Hitler. Until he acts on those words we should not imprision or kill him for them. He should be free to say them so we can be free to challenge them in sunlight, in public" then - well. Ain't no way that is not immediately going to be reported as "JKR supports Hitler's words".
And if she says nothing, it's "JKR dodges question to avoid condeming Hitler".
So yes, she did deflect. She gave the only defense to the "would you extend free speech and protection from violence to someone who if they gain power would take those away from you?" challenge, which is to step out of the immediate framing and say "And yet both that person and you wish to take away free speech and protection from violence. You should think about that."
Honestly, I think my take is far more likely. The first interpretation is an easy ball - "Hey JKR do you think Hitler is bad?" "Yes. Next question". Why would someone who thinks JKR is secretly antisemitic, claims not to be but leaves all sort of secret clues and dog whistles for them to expose give her an easy question like that?
No, I think my reading, in which both Yes or No can be spun to discredit her, is far more likely. I think she did deflect, not to dodge a good faith question she doesn't want to answer, but to avoid a bad faith question and shine a light on to bigger picture.
And this logic holds even if the original questioner was, contrary to the majority of people asking such questions of JKR, asking the first question in good faith out of genuine interest. It just requires that JKR read the question as the second, bad faith take to explain why she replied as she did.
To be clear, I am not minimising your distress and anger at JKR for repeating Hitler's words in a context you see as trivialising them (and indeed compared to the Holocaust, what context is not trivial?). I am absolutely not suggesting you should be ok with that. However, I do think taking JKR's reply as her dodging the question of whether Hitler belongs in the list illiberal, fundamental, totalitarian and terrorist is a misinterpretation of her meaning and motive.